My reply to ‘Paul and the Depths of Jewish Hermeneutics’ by Denis

Before addressing Denis’s points I want to clear the decks, so to speak, and survey the broader historical context of the Jewish messianic expectation in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish writings. I hope the relevance of this survey to the discussion will become clearer as we proceed.

In the Hebrew Bible the term ‘messiah’ (‘anointed one’ in Hebrew) applied to the Jewish King who was anointed with oil at his coronation. He is thus called the Lord’s anointed (see 1 Samuel 10:1 and Psalm 2:2). After the destruction of the monarchy by the Babylonians in 587 BCE some Jews recalled a tradition where God told David (the great king) that he would always have a descendant on the throne (see 2 Samuel 7:14-16). So the idea that there would be a future messiah to fulfil God’s promise, a future king like David who would rule Israel once more as a a sovereign nation in the Promised Land was cherished by many Jews.

In the time of Jesus there appears to be no single idea of what Israel’s future deliver would be like. Some thought he would be a warrior king like David; others, like those who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls looked to a priestly ruler who would teach God’s Law; others looked to a cosmic figure sent by God to overthrow evil in the world (see 4 Ezra 13:1-11 and 1 Enoch 69).

In NO source before the writing of the New Testament is there ANY reference in the Bible or anywhere else to a future messiah who is to suffer and die for the sins of the world as Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. This idea appears to be a novel Christian invention. Some scholars suggest it may originate in a combination of a belief in a future messianic deliver with the idea found in the Bible of the suffering righteous one in passages like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. But the term messiah NEVER occurs in these passages.

So Jews who were anticipating the messiah were NOT looking for anyone remotely like the Jesus of Christian belief.Jews of whatever view were ALL expecting the messiah to be a powerful man who would lead the Jews into a new world order that abolished injustice and brought peace.This is why many Jews still today reject Christianity. It is radically contradictory to the messianic expectations of their own scriptures. Remember: prior to the advent of Christianity there is no evidence of Jews who believed that the messiah to come would suffer and die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead. This makes Paul’s claims in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 extraordinary, even blasphemous. So how did this unexpected idea arise? I am not entirely sure. Perhaps during the ministry of Jesus his followers had come to think he was the promised anointed one. He would deliver Israel and bring freedom to God’s people. However when it appeared to them that he had been crucified this belief was radically disconfirmed. But when some people reported having “visions” of Jesus (see Acts 26:19 for this terminology) a few or more followers felt compelled to reassert their earlier convictions about Jesus being the messiah. If God had given them a spiritual vision of Jesus alive he must have been the one they believed him to be. But not all were convinced of the authenticity of these visions (also known as resurrection appearances). Some of the followers of Jesus had serious doubts about these “resurrection” stories (see the doubts expressed by disciples even after witnessing the appearances in Matthew 28:17) and Paul writing long before the gospels betrays no knowledge of an empty tomb.

In time passages in the Hebrew Bible were pressed into service to explain how God’s messiah could be crucified (so they thought) and raised alive to God (a view shared by Muslims and Christians). One such passage, which though it does not mention a messiah, was nevertheless taken to refer to Jesus was in the prophet Isaiah who speaks of the suffering of God’s righteous one whom he calls the “Servant of the Lord”.There are four “Songs of the Suffering Servant,” as scholars call the different passages in Isaiah, the most important of which is Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The interpretation of this passage is not easy but the widely held view amongst scholars is that it is speaking poetically of the suffering of the nation of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (Isaiah 49:3 suggests this). It is important to note however that there is NOevidence whatsoever that any Jew, prior to Christianity, ever took the passage as a reference to the future Jewish messiah. Notice that Isaiah refers to the Servant’s suffering as already having taken place in the past.

Christians understood their beliefs about Jesus’ own suffering in the light of this and similar passages. But not all understood Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for sins or as an atonement. The author of Luke’s gospel omits crucial propitiatory verses in his sources in the writing of his own gospel. For example, Luke’s significant omission of the crucial verse ‘For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many’, to be found in his source at Mark 10:45; and in Luke 22 where the NRSV footnote says ‘ancient authorities lack, in whole or in part 19b-20’, the sacrificial language about the body and blood of Jesus. For Luke the death of Jesus is that of a Jewish martyr, exposing Israel’s rejection of its prophets.

—————-

It is against this historical backdrop and survey of the literature that we can now address Denis’s comments. In the light of the above considerations we can now look again at the conclusion to the article by Denis:

‘In short, if one is reading the OT like a modern hyperliteralist, insisting on only what is explicit and on the surface, then one is not going to find references to what is referred to in Acts 17:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. However, on the other hand, as was noted, Paul did not necessarily handle Scripture in that way. Paul was an ancient Jew, and thus it is worth noting that within the paradigm of Jewish tradition, the Scriptures cryptically or indirectly referring to things like those listed in Acts and 1 Corinthians is neither absurd nor impossible.’

But I would suggest that Paul’s eisegesis was far from being within the Jewish tradition. His novel concept of a suffering and dying messiah was utterly alien to the faith of his fathers, and probably blasphemous. He created (or inherited)notions of the messiah, human sacrifice, and anti-Torah polemics (see his letter to the Galatians) that understandably horrified his Jewish contemporaries, even many Jewish Christians.

96 replies

In NO source before the writing of the New Testament is there ANY reference in the Bible or anywhere else to a future messiah who is to suffer and die for the sins of the world as Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Actually, Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the Messiah twice and uses the word, and talks about the Messiah being “cut off” (killed) – and that is a similar concept to Isaiah 53:8 – “He will be cut off the land of the living” (killed) and then after His death, the temple would be destroyed. Nothing could be clearer that that was a prophesy of the Messiah to die for sins and that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled that, since the temple was destroyed after His death.

Jesus said He is that suffering servant (and Messiah) of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12 (Mark 10:45; Mark 14:24)

If you look at what Jews today (who reject Jesus as Messiah) view as Messianic passages in the OT (TaNaKh):
None of those passages have the word “Messiah” (Moshiach, משיח) in them.

Paul, which passages below that Jews believe are about the Messiah and the Messianic age have the word Messiah in them?

Ken, yours is a very poor bit of exegesis, because what you are really doing eisegesis.

Let’s look at Daniel 9:24-27 in full

Daniel 9:24-27
24 “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.[a] 25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[b] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place[c] shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”

Footnotes:
Daniel 9:24 Or thing or one
Daniel 9:26 Or His
Daniel 9:27 Cn: Meaning of Heb uncertain

v. 25 – an anointed prince = Messiah, the prince
v. 26 – an anointed one will be cut off and shall have nothing = Messiah will be cut off and have nothing = crucifixion and death

Isaiah 53:8 – “He was cut off from the land of the living” = death. the rest of Isaiah 53 speaks of substitutionary atonement for sins.

Daniel 9:24 – the purpose of this time line and coming of Messiah:

to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity,

What could be clearer that this prophesy is about the future Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth ?

to bring in everlasting righteousness, = true righteousness in the heart that is eternal can only come from faith in Christ and having His righteousness imputed to our account. Romans 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:21; Philippians 3:9

to seal both vision and prophet,
= no more prophesy after Jesus and His apostles = Islam is false. It was sealed up by Jesus and His new covenant revelation, in the 27 books of the NT, the true Injeel.

and to anoint a most holy = the anointing of Christ Himself, at baptism, and His crowning as King of kings at the right hand of the Father after His resurrection and ascension.

v. 25 – an anointed prince = Messiah, the prince
v. 26 – an anointed one will be cut off and shall have nothing = Messiah will be cut off and have nothing = crucifixion and death”

Uh oh, my BS meter is going off the charts!

“Anointed one” can be any figure, not necessarily THE Messiah. Cyrus was also called “anointed”.

“Isaiah 53:8 – “He was cut off from the land of the living” = death. the rest of Isaiah 53 speaks of substitutionary atonement for sins.”

Or it just speaks of the nation of Israel as the “suffering servant”. That’s strike two.

“Daniel 9:24 – the purpose of this time line and coming of Messiah:

to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity, ”

Well, there you go. That’s strike three.

“Seventy ‘sevens’[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.”

It says that 490 years are decreed for the Israelites to atone for their sins, which caused their exile to Babylon. It would end with the anointment of the temple (“Most Holy Place”). “Most Holy Place” is used throughout the Bible to refer to the temple and nothing else. Aside from the book of Hebrews, an anonymous Christian book, ALL of the books that mention MHP are referring to the temple. So when was the temple “anointed” during the time of Jesus, or even after? Instead of being anointed, it was destroyed! Now I can hear your usual BS already coming out: “oh, it was a metaphor”. But no, it really wasn’t. It was literally referring to the temple.

“and to anoint a most holy = the anointing of Christ Himself, at baptism, and His crowning as King of kings at the right hand of the Father after His resurrection and ascension.”

Ah, there it is, the BS coming out. You do realize that just because you believe this nonsense, it doesn’t mean anything. You have NO evidence to back up this rubbish. It’s just one idiotic interpretation that you want people to just gullibly accept like you do. Why do Christians always want others to be as brainless as they are?

You didn’t address the fact that if Paul’s “novel concept of a suffering and dying Messiah,” why then do we find later rabbinic judaism affirming a suffering and dying Messiah? Do I need to repost the references that Denis himself provided showing this? Why would later rabbis come up with the suffering and dying Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph) based on texts such as Zechariah 12:10, if such a concept is so alien to Judaism as you assert?

In fact, we wouldn’t expect the rabbis to come up with such a concept once Christianity had spread and become such a thorn in the side of the Jews. And yet they still did not shy away from positing a suffering and dying Messiah, even interpreting Isaiah 53 in respect to the Messiah’s suffering vicariously for the sins of the world.

So Paul can you please address these objections since you didn’t bother touching them here or in the comments section to Denis’ post on this same subject.

Zechariah 12:1
The burden of the word of the LORD (Yahweh) concerning Israel.

Thus declares the LORD (Yahweh) who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him,

. . .

“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.
Zechariah 12:10

We see the Father (Yahweh), the Spirit, and the Son (the one who was pierced; and Yahweh says it was “Me” – the Deity of Christ.

“Remember: prior to the advent of Christianity there is no evidence of Jews who believed that the messiah to come would suffer and die for the sins of the world and be raised from the dead. This makes Paul’s claims in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 extraordinary, even blasphemous.”

First, your statement assumes that no Jew before or during the time of Christ believed or interpreted texts such as Isaiah 53 or Zechariah 12:10 as referring to the Messiah suffering and dying vicariously. We do not have access to everything that the Jews wrote, and therefore cannot know with absolutely certainty that none of the Jews believed this. Therefore, the only way you could even see this as an important argument in support of your position is if you happen to be omniscient and can say with absolute certitude that no Jew held to this view. As the old cliche goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In fact, up until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls a person could have argued that no Jew ever believed in a priestly Messiah from the line of Aaron, since the Jews only believed in a single Davidic Messiah who rules forever. And yet when the scrolls were found in 1947 we now came to realize that the Jews that composed those documents believed there would be at least two Messiahs, a priestly one from the line of Aaron and a Davidic one. This perfectly illustrates my point, namely, unless you know with absolute certainty or have access to everything that the Jews wrote, your claim that a Messiah who dies and suffers for the sins of the world would have been viewed as blasphemous is simply desperately vacuous and carries no weight.

This leads me to my next point, one which you ignored since you claimed that you wanted to hold off from commenting until Giron chimes in. If the concept of a suffering and dying Messiah was really novel and blasphemous, then how do you explain later rabbinic Judaism affirming this very concept? How do you explain that Jewish sources written after Christ and the spread of Christianity affirm the notion of a suffering and dying Messiah, a Messiah who dies for the sins of the world? Like I mentioned in my previous comment, would you like me to repost the references that Denis himself provided showing that rabbinic Jews who composed the Talmud, the Targumim and the Zohar testifying to a dying and rising Messiah?

In light of this fact, you need to explain why did these later rabbis come up with the suffering and dying Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph) based on texts such as Zechariah 12:10, if such a concept is so alien and blasphemous to Judaism as you assert? In fact, we wouldn’t expect the rabbis to come up with such a concept once Christianity had spread and had become a thorn in the side of the Jews. And yet they still did not shy away from positing a suffering and dying Messiah, even interpreting Isaiah 53 in respect to the Messiah’s suffering vicariously for the sins of the world. So you need to answer these points in order for your argument to hold any weight.

Finally, and just as importantly, the NT writings themselves testify that the belief in a Messiah who dies for our sins, and is raised for our justification, is not alien to Judaism, but thoroughly anchored in the Hebrew Bible, specifically in the sound exegesis of Isaiah 53, a passage that is cited or alluded to by various NT authors:

“When the evening came, they brought to Him many who were possessed with demons. And He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all who were sick, to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, ‘He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.'” Matthew 8:16-17 citing Isa. 53:4

“For I tell you, what is written must yet be accomplished in Me, ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ Indeed, what is written concerning Me has a fulfillment.” Luke 22:37 citing Isa. 53:12

“Then Philip ran to him, and heard him read the book of Isaiah the prophet, and said, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ He said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: ‘He was led as a sheep to slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so He opened not His mouth. In His humiliation justice was denied Him; who will speak of His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.’ The eunuch said to Philip, ‘I ask you, of whom does the prophet speak, of himself or of someone else?’ Then Philip spoke, beginning with the same Scripture, and preached Jesus to him.” Acts 8:30-35 citing Isa. 53:7-8

“For to this you were called, because Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth.’ When He was reviled, He did not revile back; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but He entrusted Himself to Him who judges righteously. He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness. ‘By His wounds you were healed.’ For you were as sheep going astray, but now have been returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.” 1 Peter 2:21-25 referencing Isa. 53:5, 9

The fact that Isaiah 53 is cited as a prophesy of the vicarious suffering, death, rising and exaltation of the Messiah, and the fact that you cannot cite any Jewish sources, composed before or during the time of the writing of the NT writings, which refute or contradict the Christian interpretation and understanding of this OT text actually ends up rebutting your entire argument. The NT use of Isaiah 53 actually proves that the Jews did view this as a Messianic prophesy, which explains why so many first century Jews ended up embracing Jesus as their Messiah, and further explains why even later rabbinic sources did not shy away from affirming its Messianic significance.

Therefore, all of these factors end up proving that your namesake (irony of ironies), the Apostle Paul, knew what he was talking about and knew a lot more than you do about the Jewish interpretation of specific OT passages such as Isaiah 53. Therefore, there wasn’t anything novel about Paul’s concept of a Messiah who suffers and dies for our sins.

Now all of what I stated here is what is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important!

The fact remains that there is NO mention of a future messiah dying for the sins of the world and rising on the third day anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Not a single verse. So Paul’s claim in 1 Cor 15 is erroneous.

Except for the Jews like Jesus Himself and His apostles, who interpreted Psalm 2:1-12; Isaiah 52:13-15 to Isaiah 53:1-12; Psalm 110, Daniel 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Psalm 16:10; Zechariah 12:10; 9:9; Isaiah 7:14; 9:1-7; Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Isaiah 42; Isaiah 49; Jonah 1:17 and the whole book of Jonah, Exodus 12, and many other passages as about the Messiah and His first coming to be an atonement for sins and rise from the dead.

No; you are wrong. Daniel 9:24-27 is clear that Messiah (the word is used twice) will come to bring in atonement, etc. and be “cut off” and that the temple will be destroyed after He is “cut off” (killed, see similar concept in Isaiah 53:8 – “He will be cut off from the land of the living”) So, that shows Isaiah 52-53 is about the Messiah to come. And Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling that – Mark 10:45 and all the Lord’s supper passages. Messiah and His atonement and death are clear in those passages. The resurrection is clear in Psalm 16:10 and Jonah 1:17 and His Deity and Sonship is clear in Psalm 2:1-12. All the Jews of NT era interpreted all those other passages as Messianic and about Jesus Himself.

Which one of the passages that modern Jews who don’t accept Jesus as Messiah, use the word “Messiah” in it?

“The following passages in the Jewish scriptures are the ones that Jews consider to be messianic in nature or relating to the end of days. These are the ones that we rely upon in developing our messianic concept:
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20 Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39 Ezekiel 38:16 Hosea 3:4-3:5 Micah 4 Zephaniah 3:9 Zechariah 14:9 Daniel 10:14”

Williams, if not a single one of those texts mention a suffering and dying Messiah then why did later rabbinic Jews apply Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10 to a suffering and dying Messiah, one who dies for the sins of the world? Let me cite the claims of one of the 20th century’s leading rabbinic Jewish scholars and philosophers, the late Joseph Immanuel Schochet:

Jewish tradition speaks of two redeemers, each one called Mashiach. Both are involved in ushering in the Messianic era. They are Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Yossef.1

The term Mashiach unqualified always refers to Mashiach ben David (Mashiach descendant of David) of the tribe of Judah. He is the actual (final) redeemer who shall rule in the Messianic age. All that was said in our text relates to him.

Mashiach ben Yossef (Mashiach the descendant of Joseph) of the tribe of Ephraim (son of Joseph), is also referred to as Mashiach ben Ephrayim, Mashiach the descendant of Ehpraim.2 He will come first, before the final redeemer, and later will serve as his viceroy.3

The essential task of Mashiach ben Yossef is to act as precursor to Mashiach ben David: he will prepare the world for the coming of the final redeemer. Different sources attribute to him different functions, some even charging him with tasks traditionally associated with Mashiach ben David (such as the ingathering of the exiles, the rebuilding of the Bet Hamikdash, and so forth).4…

The immediate results of this war11 will be disastrous: Mashiach ben Yossef will be killed. This is described in the prophecy of Zechariah, who says of this tragedy that “they shall be mourn him as one mourns for an only child” (Zechariah 12:10). 12 His death will be followed by a period of great calamities. These new tribulations shall be the final test for Israel, and shortly thereafter Mashiach ben David shall come, avenge his death, resurrect him, and inaugurate the Messianic era of everlasting peace and bliss.13

This, in brief, is the general perception of the “second Mashiach,” the descendant of Joseph through the tribe of Ephraim. (Mashiach: Principles of Mashiach and the Messianic Era in Jewish Law and Tradition (expanded edition), published by S.I.E. (New York-Toronto), 5752-1992, Appendix II. Mashiach Ben Yossef, pp. 93-98)

Here is the reference from the Jewish source Pesikta Rabaty, which Schochet made mention of:

Hosha‘ya said: “In the future Jerusalem will be a lantern for the nations of the world, and they will walk in her light….”

In Thy light do we see light (Ps. 36:10). This is the light of the Messiah, as it is written, And God saw the light that it was good (Gen. 1:4). This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, saw the generation of the Messiah and its deeds prior to the creation of the world. And He hid the light for the Messiah and his generation under His Throne of Glory.

Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the World! The light which is hidden under Your Throne of Glory, for whom is it [destined]?” He said to him: “For him who will turn you back and disgrace you, and shame your face.” He said to him: “Master of the world! Show him to me!” He said to him: “Come and see him!” When Satan saw the Messiah, he trembled and fell upon his face and said: “Surely this is the Messiah who in the future will cast me and all the princes of the nations of the world into Gehenna….”

In that hour the nations became awestruck and said before him: “Master of the World! Who is he into whose hand we shall fall, what is his name and what is his nature?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: “His name is Ephraim, My True Messiah. He will raise his stature and the stature of his generation, and will light up the eyes of Israel, and will save his people, and no nation and language shall be able to stand up against him…. All his enemies and adversaries will be affrighted and will flee from him… and even the rivers will cease to flow into the sea….”

[When He created the Messiah], the Holy One, blessed be He, began to tell him the conditions [of his future mission], and said to him: “Those who are hidden with you [your generation], their sins will in the future force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto a calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this?”

The Messiah said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the World! Will that suffering last many years?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “By your life and the life of my head, it is a septenary of it that I decreed upon you. But if your soul is troubled, I shall banish them as from this moment.”

He said before Him: “Master of the Worlds! With gladness in my soul and with joy in my heart I accept it, so that not a single one of Israel should perish; and not only those who will be alive should be saved in my days, but even the dead who have died from the days of Adam the first man until now. And not only they, but even the stillborn should be saved in my days; and not only the stillborn, but even those to whose creation You gave thought but who were not created. This is what I want, this is what I accept!” (Pes. Rab. pp. 161a-b)

They said: In the septenary in which the Son of David comes they will bring iron beams and put them upon his neck until his body bends and he cries and weeps, and his voice rise up into the Heights, and he says before Him: “Master of the World! How much can my strength suffer? How much my spirit? How much my soul? And how much my limbs? Am I not but flesh and blood?…”

In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: “Ephraim, My True Messiah, you have already accepted [this suffering] from the six days of creation. Now your suffering shall be like My suffering. For ever since the day on which wicked Nebuchadnezzar came up and destroyed My Temple and burnt My sanctuary, and I exiled My children among the nations of the world, by your life and the life of your head, I have not sat on My Throne. And if you do not believe me, see the dew that is upon My head….”

In that hour he says before Him: “Master of the World! Now my mind is at rest, for it is sufficient for the servant to be like his Master!” (Pes. Rab. pp. 162a) (Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years [Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 1979], 12. The Suffering Messiah, pp. 111-113)

What an amazing exposition! Not only does the above reference speak of Messiah suffering in order to atone for the sins of creation, and not only does it apply Psalm 22:15 to the Messiah, thereby showing that even some of the Jews took this to be a Messianic Psalm, it also confirms the Messiah’s preexistence, since it claims that the light that God spoke forth in Genesis 1:4 was none other than the Messiah whom God has kept hidden under God’s throne!

This rabbinic source even has God and the Messiah speaking to each other long before Messiah’s appearance into the world, further highlighting the rabbinic belief in the Messiah’s personal prehuman existence!

And here is another rabbinic citation which Schochet alluded to:

What was the mourning for? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ: One holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, who was killed; 1 and one holds that it was for the evil angel, who was killed. 2 It would be right according to one who holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, because he explains as supporting him the passage [Zech. xii. 10]: “And they will look up toward me (for every one) whom they have thrust through, and they will lament for him, as one lamenteth for an only son, and weep bitterly for him, as one weepeth bitterly for the firstborn”;…

The rabbis taught: The Messiah b. David, who (as we hope) will appear in the near future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ask something of me and I will give it to thee, as it is written [Ps. ii. 7-8]: “I will announce the decree . . . Ask it of me, and I will give,” etc. But as the Messiah b. David will have seen that the Messiah b. Joseph who preceded him was killed, he will say before the Lord: Lord of the Universe, I will ask nothing of Thee but life. And the Lord will answer: This was prophesied already for thee by thy father David [Ps. xxi. 5]: “Life hath he asked of thee, thou gavest it to him.”…

It is written [Zech. ii. 3]: “And the Lord showed me four carpenters.” Who are the four carpenters? Said R. Hanah bar Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: Messiah b. David, and Messiah b. Joseph, Elijah, and Cohen Zedek.

It is written [Micah, v. 4]: “And in this (manner) shall there be peace: If Asshur should come into our land; and if he should tread in our palaces, then will we raise up against him seven shepherds, and eight anointed men. Who are the seven shepherds? David in the centre; Adam, Sheth, Methushelach, at his right; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses at his left. And who are the eight anointed men? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, Messiah, and Elijah. 1…

Footnotes

79:1 There was a tradition among the ancient Hebrews that two Messiahs would appear before the redemption of Israel one of the tribe of Joseph and one of the tribe of Jehudah, a descendant of David and the expression “who was killed” means who will have been killed. The Jewish Christians at that time, who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but in his Messiahship (i.e., that the traditional Messiah ben Joseph meant the son of a man by the name of Joseph, but not of the tribe of Joseph, as Christ was, and that his fate was to be killed before the appearance of Messiah b. David), explain this passage to have reference to Christ. (Tract Succah (Booths), Chapter V, from the Babylonian Talmud, translated by Michael L. Rodkinson [d. 1918], Section Moed (Festivals)Tracts Betzh, Succah, Moed Katan, Taanith, Megilla and Ebel Rabbathi or Semahoth, Book 4: Volumes VII. and VIII.; capital emphasis ours)

And note what the renowned medieval rabbi Rashi wrote in respect to Zechariah 12:10:

a spirit of grace and supplications: That it should come into their mind to supplicate Me, and they will be in My good graces.

a spirit: Talant in Old French, a desire.

they shall look to Me because of those who have been thrust through: Jonathan renders: And they shall supplicate Me because of their wanderings.

And they shall look to Me to complain about those of them whom the nations thrust through and slew during their exile.

and they shall mourn over it: Over that slaughter.

as one mourns over an only son: As a man mourns over his only son. And our Sages expounded this in tractate Sukkah (52a) as referring TO THE MESSIAH, SON OF JOSEPH, WHO WAS SLAIN. (The Complete Jewish Bible With Rashi Commentary; capital emphasis ours)

These quotations strongly suggest that the reason why later rabbinic Judaism came up with two Messiahs, one who shall be slain and the other who will reign, is because of passages such as Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and Zechariah 12:10, all which speak of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah, as even the Jews could see. They, thus, had to come up with a way of harmonizing these texts with all the other prophecies that speak of the Messiah eternally reigning in glory and triumphing over the enemies of God.

So now can you please explain why these rabbis interpreted Psalm 22, Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12:10

Sam that is utterly irrelevant. The Hebrew Bible itself never says anywhere, not even once, that the messiah will die for the sins of the world and rise on the third day. And no Jew ever though this till the rise of christianity. Then much later, presumably under the influence of this new religion, some rabbis began to imitate the christians in their eisegesis of the Bible.

Like I said Paul, if that’s your answer then there’s nothing further for me to say.

The only thing I would say is don’t stop blogging because you do provide some good challenges for Christians to ponder on and which need to be addressed. For that I am grateful, and which is why you are my favorite Muslim polemicist.

What an irony when christians desperately want to prove that jews’ expectation about Messiah was about man who would die for their sins while their prophet Paul himself said “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” That’s by itself implies very disastrous implications regarding Paul’s religion. Moreover, Paul’s lie in(1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ) has not been solved yet. If christians want to rely on some latter rabbinic traditions which need to be examined more, we also can show you stronger traditions that Jesus was just a bastard.

“Seventy weeks (seventy periods of seven years = 490 years from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem) have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, . . . (focus on those 3 purposes – all about atonement for sin) (verse 24)

that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; (verse 25)

(483 years – Messiah appears, or is anointed at His baptism – the prophesy in Daniel spoken in Persia around 500 BC, being passed down from generation to generation of the Magi in the Persian Empire, along with the revelation of God through the miracle star, causes Magi in Persian Empire to come to Jerusalem because the prophesy was spoken and written by Daniel in Persia around 500 BC. (Matthew 2:1-12)

and 7 weeks (7 periods of seven years = 49 years
and 62 periods of seven years = 434 years
49 + 434 = 483 years – brings us to either time around Jesus’ birth or Jesus’ baptism, depending on which of the decrees of Persian kings one starts with. (Darius the Great and Ardeshir (Artaxerxes) issued decrees to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off (see Isaiah 53:8 for similar concept of being cut off = killed)
and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. (verse 26)

the sanctuary was destroyed later in 70 AD – verse 27 – “desolations are determined” (prophesied by Jesus around 30 AD in Matthew 24)

I know about that claim that liberals make; but Jews for Judaism, and all the Rabbis that you use to try and attack Christianity and the NT, do not agree with you. Jesus Himself, affirmed the book of Daniel several times – Mark 16:60-64; Matthew 24:15 / Mark 13:14 and all the other allusions by using the phrase for Himself, “the Son of Man” points back to Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح affirms the prophet Daniel and his book. Written around 530 BC. It is full of predictive prophesy.

But Jesus said that Daniel spoke of the abomination of desolations in the book of Daniel. (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 Jesus said this was about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (40 years from the time Jesus prophesied about it around 30 AD). When go back to Daniel 9:24-27 we see the abomination of desolations happens after the Messiah is cut off (killed). Verse 24 says the coming of the Messiah is about “the atonement for sins”, “finishing of iniquity”, etc. The concept of the Messiah being cut off is similar to Isaiah 53:8 – “he will be cut off from the land of the living”.

Some Jews of the first century (Jesus and His disciples and followers) recognized this as the proper way to understand the OT. Acts 2, 8, 13, Mark 10:45; 14:25; 14:60-64; Matthew 28:20; and some Gentile writers also recognized this – Luke 24:25-27; 32; 44-49

Here’s my challenge to Williams and all the Muslims here. Since Williams has been appealing to the Messianic belief of the Jews before and during the time of Christ, I want him to cite a single Jewish source that says the following about the Messiah:

1. The Messiah will be conceived and born of a virgin.

2. The Messiah will simply go around preaching monotheism and calling people to the worship of the Lord God of Israel (cf. Q. 5:72).

3. The Messiah will announce the coming of an unlettered prophet and messenger from the line of Arabs, whose name would be Ahmad (cf. Q. 61:6).

4. Because of the Jews’ plot to kill him, God would end up terminating the Messiah’s earthly ministry by raising him physically, bodily to himself, to dwell in his own presence (Q. 3:54-55; 4:158).

5. God would then mislead the Jews into thinking that they killed their own Messiah even though that is not what actually took place (Q. 4:157).

6. God would then send the Messiah back to the earth to finish the job that he was sent to do, including killing the antichrist and his armies, as well as ushering in the one true religion on a global scale (Q. 43:54 and the mutawattir ahadith attributed to Muhammad).

I must confess that this reply struck me as somewhat curious, insofar that it does not grapple with the Jewish traditions my own entry appealed to. For example, your article seems to express a less than positive view for the idea that Isaiah 53 might refer to the Messiah, in part because the Messiah is not explicitly mentioned therein, yet I referenced an ancient Talmudic tradition that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah. That raises certain questions, such as: how is it that both certain Talmudic sages and New Testament authors thought Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah?

You refer to Biblical passages which were “pressed into service to explain how God’s messiah could be crucified,” and list Isaiah 53 as a prime example, but the Talmudic approach to Isaiah 53 seems to pose a problem for such speculation, as it is hard to believe Talmudic sages only associated Isaiah 53 with the Messiah because they needed a post hoc Scriptural explanation for the crucifixion of Jesus. Here I agree with Sam that it seems unlikely that non-Christian Jews would adopt such a position only after Christians had tried to appeal to such an understanding of Isaiah, and therefore it seems quite plausible that the relevant tradition existed among Jews even before the New Testament writers began to employ it.

You describe Saint Paul’s position in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 as “a novel Christian invention,” but the question remains open as to how we understand such an idea when it is set against the backdrop of Jewish tradition (in particular the various traditions which came up in my own entry). If Jewish tradition made room for the Messiah being referred to in Isaiah 53, and the possibility of the Messiah dying, and even makes room for incorporating Hosea 6 into a Messianic scope (something Christ is depicted as doing as well), then what Paul proposed seems a lot less difficult to grasp within that context. At the very least, it doesn’t seem so obviously to be a mere “Christian invention” (much less his own invention).

You appeal to “Jewish expectation,” but what Jews expect can be different from what exists as a possibility within their own traditions. This is true of Jews to this day, as has become clear in the modern debates between ChaB”aD Lubavitch and its critics. For example, there are orthodox Jews who believe the Messiah will not die. The Lubavitchers rightly respond that Jewish tradition nonetheless makes room for the possibility of the Messiah dying and coming back to life (which also comes up in Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98B, the same daf that records a tradition applying Isaiah 53 to the Messiah).

In closing, I would like to note that a major theme of my entry, and my subsequent replies to you in the comments section of that entry, was the question of whether the meaning of Scripture is limited to only that which is explicit. The reason why this is a focus of my writings of this subject is because the relevant criticism seeks to punish Paul for attributing to Scripture things that do not seem to be explicitly stated therein. However, if ancient Jews did not see the meaning of Scripture as limited to only that which is explicit, if the earliest depictions of Jesus likewise depict Him as not limiting the meaning of Scripture to only that which is explicit, then why should we try to force Paul into a strictly hyperliteralist approach to Scripture?

Just to reiterate my point that Paul makes claims about the Bible teaching that the messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected on the 3rd that are simply not found in the Jewish scriptures. It should be plain to all but it is not remotely evident. No Jew known to history before the rise of christianity ever considered the favourite christian proof texts as referring to the Messiah.

But the biggest problem with your whole argument and approach is its peripheral and marginal character. It ignores the elephant in the room:

The many explicit statements in the Hebrew Bible about the nature and role of the future messiah and what he would accomplish for the world. None of these clear, explicit and indisputable passage speak of a Christian messianic figure. Your methodology focuses on allegedly indirect and obscure passages about a messiah that are all highly contested.

I suggest we look at these clear and explicit passages and come to a common understanding of them first. Agreed?

Paul wrote:Paul makes claims about the Bible teaching that the messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected on the 3rd that are simply not found in the Jewish scriptures.

I would say that such is not explicit in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, as I argued in my own entry, there is no reason to think that Paul limited himself to a mere surface reading of the text. The idea of an ancient Jew understanding the Hebrew Bible as referring to such things is less absurd when such is viewed against the backdrop of (a) Jewish tradition and (b) the depiction of Christ’s approach to Scripture in the Synoptics.

Paul wrote:No Jew known to history before the rise of christianity ever considered the favourite christian proof texts as referring to the Messiah.

And yet we have Jewish traditions treating some of those texts in somewhat similar ways. As both Sam and I attempted to argue, it seems unlikely that non-Christian Jews took those approaches merely to make sense of Jesus’ crucifixion, and thus such common approaches among ancient Jews and Christians may therefore be quite early, perhaps even coming from a common pool of tradition.

Paul wrote:The many explicit statements in the Hebrew Bible about the nature and role of the future messiah and what he would accomplish for the world. None of these clear, explicit and indisputable passage speak of a Christian messianic figure. Your methodology focuses on allegedly indirect and obscure passages about a messiah that are all highly contested. I suggest we look at these clear and explicit passages and come to a common understanding of them first. Agreed?

We can look over those passages if you like, but I have to wonder, through what lens will we be viewing them? This is an important question when you recall the chronology that precedes and encompasses our respective entries on the subject:

(1) Paul states that the Scriptures refer to Christ dying for the sins of others, and rising on the third day.

(2) Modern readers take a more literalist reading of the Hebrew Bible, and object that they don’t see any explicit references to such therein.

(3) I counter that Paul wasn’t necessarliy limiting himself to a surface reading the text, rather, being an ancient Jew, he likely approached the Hebrew Bibles in ways which at times paralleled how other ancient Jews approached the corpus.

It would strike me as unfortunate if you are proposing that we simply move away from the first point and return to the second point (which is to say disregard the way Paul’s claims look against the backdrop of Jewish tradition and early depictions of Jesus, to instead go back to trying to taking a literalist approach to the text).

That aside, I would also offer a rule of thumb which I think Christians and Muslims can agree to: just because Jesus has not done something yet, that does not mean He therefore will not do that thing. This is an important rule to keep in mind when arguing “the Messiah was expected to do X, and Jesus didn’t do that.”

Just for the record as Christians like Ken love to cite Daniel in support of Christian claims about the messiah.

Let’s look at Daniel 9:24-27 in full

Daniel 9:24-27
24 “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city: to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.[a] 25 Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its[b] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place[c] shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.”

Footnotes:
Daniel 9:24 Or thing or one
Daniel 9:26 Or His
Daniel 9:27 Cn: Meaning of Heb uncertain

In addition to what brother Paul said, I would add that when the 70 weeks prophecy is analyzed, it cannot be referring to Jesus or to the Christian age in way. The following is from my article on Daniel:

“In fact, the events described in Daniel 9 can be reliably traced to historical events which occurred during the struggle between the Jews and the Seleucids in the 2nd-century BCE, and not the 1st-century CE. As Hammer explains:

“…the final week (i.e. seven years) is the crucial period, starting with the murder of Onias III, the high priest (described as the removal of ‘one who is anointed’ in verse 26) in 171 B.C. Halfway through this period has occurred the desecration of the temple, when Antiochus ‘put a stop to sacrifice and offering’ (verse 27).”[209]

“[i]n the context of the other historical references…the anointed leader probably refers to either Zerubbabel or the high priest Joshua (Ezra 3.2; Hag. ch 1; Zech. 6.9-15, while the anointed one is most likely the high priest Onias III, killed in 171 BCE (2 Macc. 4.30-34).”[210]

Another reason the prophecy cannot be referring to Jesus (peace be upon him) is that the death of the “Anointed One” was supposed to happen 62 weeks (434 years) after the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem. The year of Jesus’ alleged death is not known with any certainty, though Christians generally settle for the year 30 CE. However, since Christians also cannot ascertain with certainty as to when the declaration to rebuild Jerusalem was even made, only through generous assumptions can they finagle the chronology of events to coincide (and only roughly at that!) with the approximate year of Jesus’ death! For example, Christian apologist Matt Slick admits:

“…there is much debate among scholars regarding the decree to which Daniel is referring. There does not seem to be an easy solution.”[211]

He and other apologists generally settle on the year 457 BCE as the most likely date of the declaration, but even with that assumption, the prophecy fails to complete the full 483 years required, since 483 minus 457 equals 26. In other words, the death of the “Anointed One” should have occurred in the year 26 CE. But, the earliest date for Jesus’ death is assumed to be 30 CE![212]

Moreover, as Chris Sandoval notes, the Christian interpretation ignores the clear parallels between chapters 8 and 9, the former of which definitely refers to the tyranny of Antiochus IV.[213] Thus, the interpretation posited by Christians is rather fanciful.[214] It is clear that the correct interpretation is that the prophecy was referring to events in the 2nd-century BCE.”

It is interesting that even the source that Faiz quotes here, recognizes that the final week = “seven years” – the Hebrew word in this context means “seven periods of seven years” = 490 years.

So, the final week of seven years brings us right up the time of Jesus, from 457 BC to 26 AD (when Messiah the Prince appears = His anointing of the Holy Spirit at His baptism. 483 years until “Messiah the Prince appears / is manifested”

In the middle of the final week (3 and 1/2 years later, after His baptism and start of ministry), He is cut off, killed, died.

Around 3 and 1/2 years later, Saul is converted, (Acts 9, 22, 26) who became the apostle Paul.

the desolations and destruction of the temple is “decreed” (Daniel 9:27) by Jesus in 30 AD. (Matthew 24; Mark 13), but does not take place until 40 years later. “this generation” Matthew 24:34 (Matthew 24:15-34) – a Jewish “generation” was known as “40 years”.

“It is interesting that even the source that Faiz quotes here, recognizes that the final week = “seven years” – the Hebrew word in this context means “seven periods of seven years” = 490 years.”

LOL, what’s so interesting about it? Hammer explained how these 490 years can be divided:

“(a) 7 weeks (49 years) – from 586 to 538 B.C.
(b) 62 weeks (434 years) – from the end of the exile to the murder of Onias III (538 to 171 B.C.)
(c) one week (= 7 years) – from 171 to 164 B.C., divided into two at the desecration of the temple in Kislev (December) 168 B.C.” (p. 98).

He also explains that the discrepancy in the total number of years (434 years) is due to the ignorance of “later Jewish writers” about “the precise length of the Persian period”. In other words, we can chalk the fuzzy math up to a lack of historical knowledge.

“So, the final week of seven years brings us right up the time of Jesus, from 457 BC to 26 AD (when Messiah the Prince appears = His anointing of the Holy Spirit at His baptism. 483 years until “Messiah the Prince appears / is manifested””

Ooops, there goes the BS meter again. Kenny just arbitrarily chooses a date to start from and then concludes that it’s amazing “prophecy”. Not only that, but Kenny even inadvertently proves himself wrong! The 62 weeks were supposed to end with the death of the anointed one, not his “manifestation”. So Jesus should have been put to death in the year 26 CE, but that cannot be the year because Pontius Pilate began his prefecture in 26 CE, and the gospels imply that he had been prefect for some time already:

“Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.” (Mark 15:6-8).

Aside from the questionable historicity of such a “custom”, why would the gospels say that the Jews asked Pilate to “do for them what he usually did” if he had just become the prefect? This is why Christians have to settle for a later date for Jesus’ death, usually around 30 CE. And if it was 30 CE, then the numbers do not add up.

“In the middle of the final week (3 and 1/2 years later, after His baptism and start of ministry), He is cut off, killed, died.”

Eh, wrong! Daniel 9 says that that the anointed one will be killed after the 69 weeks are up. The final week would begin after the death of the anointed one (Onias III). The leader of the Greeks would make a pact with some Jews, which would culminate with the desecration of the temple and the beginning of the Jewish revolt.

“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

“Around 3 and 1/2 years later, Saul is converted, (Acts 9, 22, 26) who became the apostle Paul. ”

More BS.

“the desolations and destruction of the temple is “decreed” (Daniel 9:27) by Jesus in 30 AD. (Matthew 24; Mark 13), but does not take place until 40 years later. “this generation” Matthew 24:34 (Matthew 24:15-34) – a Jewish “generation” was known as “40 years”.”

So then who was the leader who destroyed the temple but would meet his end as stated in Daniel 11? Vespasian was the commander of the Roman forces and became Emperor. After him, his son Titus, the one who destroyed Jerusalem, became emperor. None of this accords to the prophecies in Daniel 9 and 11.

If that’s the case, then your savior was a false prophet because he said that “this generation will not pass away”, meaning that the end was supposed to come in the lifetime of the disciples (40 years). That didn’t happen, did it?

verse 24
to finish the transgression,
to put an end to sin,
and to atone for iniquity a command to the Israelites to repent

verse 25
“an anointed prince” = Onias III, not Jesus because he never actually became a prince anyway

verse 26
“anointed one will be cut off and have nothing” = Onias III killed, die = killed by the Seleucids. We even know the year of his death (171 BCE). You, a Christian, cannot even tell us with certainty when your savior was crucified!

Verse 26 says nothing about the anointed one’s death serving as a “substitutionary death”. The BS meter is again going off the charts.

“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.”

See? Nothing there about any “substitutionary death”. Get your BS under control, please Kenny.

“rest of verse 26 and 27
the city and temple will be desecrated with pagan idols = 167 BCE”.

“He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

The abomination = a statue of Zeus where pig sacrifices were offered.

verse 27 – abomination of desolation = the altar to Zeus.

Nothing can be clearer as to these main points of the passage, except to brainwashed idiots like Kenny.

This is a clear “retrospective prophecy” (see Bruce Louden) which the author used to “predict” the events that were occurring in his lifetime.

LOL, what’s so interesting about it? Hammer explained how these 490 years can be divided:

“(a) 7 weeks (49 years) – from 586 to 538 B.C.

Why does Hammer (whoever that is), start in 586 BC ? That was the year that Nebuchadnezzar burnt down Solomon’s temple, and Daniel is writing after that and after the exile is finished (see Daniel 9:1-2 and the reference to the 70 years of exile being almost finished (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10) – so that makes no sense at all. Plus, Cyrus’ decree in 539 or 538 BC was to rebuilt the temple, not the city, and Darius’ decree to renew Cyrus’ decree was also just that – to rebuild the temple, not the city walls. The decree when the time table of the 490 years starts is from the decree to restore and rebuilt Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25) and that is either 457/458 BC or 444/445 BC of Artaxerxes (Ardeshir اردشیر شاه پارس ) = Ardeshir, King of Persia)

That mistake you have made, very clear and all the other evidence that Shamoun brought, nuked your arguments.

“Why does Hammer (whoever that is), start in 586 BC ? That was the year that Nebuchadnezzar burnt down Solomon’s temple, and Daniel is writing after that and after the exile is finished (see Daniel 9:1-2 and the reference to the 70 years of exile being almost finished (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:10) – so that makes no sense at all. Plus, Cyrus’ decree in 539 or 538 BC was to rebuilt the temple, not the city, and Darius’ decree to renew Cyrus’ decree was also just that – to rebuild the temple, not the city walls. The decree when the time table of the 490 years starts is from the decree to restore and rebuilt Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25) and that is either 457/458 BC or 444/445 BC of Artaxerxes (Ardeshir اردشیر شاه پارس ) = Ardeshir, King of Persia)”

Why wouldn’t he? Daniel 9 says that 70 weeks were decreed for the Israelites to atone for their sins:

“Seventy ‘sevens’[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.”

The exile to Babylon was a punishment for their sins, so it makes sense to start from there.

The decree to rebuild Jerusalem would be included in the decree to rebuild the temple, stupid. Why would the Israelites rebuild the temple and leave the city a ruin? Daniel 9 implies that both would be rebuilt, because it says that when the “people of the ruler” will come, they will destroy the city AND the sanctuary (the temple):

“The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” (9:26)

LOL, are you really that stupid?

Moreover, as you even showed yourself, you cannot even determine which “decree” to rebuild the city the Bible is even referring to. Naturally, you settle for the earlier date so that you can try to fit your Christological nonsense into this mess.

“That mistake you have made, very clear and all the other evidence that Shamoun brought, nuked your arguments.”

ROTFL, I love how you and your BFF are trying so hard to make up. Samantha and Kendra, best friends forever!

Your bestie Samantha got embarrassed by me on the rabbits debacle, so no wonder she’s so pissed.

By the way, Raymond Hammer was a professor of theology at The Queen’s College, Birmingham.

But the exile of the 70 years was already finished.
The 70 periods of seven = 490 years starts a new period – from the decree to rebuilt Jerusalem –

“So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.” Daniel 9:25

The verse does not include the years before the decree to rebuild the city.

seven and 62 periods of seven years = 483 years – to either the birth or baptism of Messiah.

so, again, your argument is Nuked.

It has nothing to do with the 70 year exile as that is already finished. (see Daniel 9:1-2)

The atonement is about what the Messiah will do when He is “cut off”, as in 9:26 and Isaiah 53:8

“But the exile of the 70 years was already finished.
The 70 periods of seven = 490 years starts a new period – from the decree to rebuilt Jerusalem –”

This is a common trick that Christians try to use. The text does not suggest that. George Athas of Moore Theological College (Australia) argues that that “7 weeks” and the “62 weeks” are separate periods, and so he renders 9:25 as the following:

“(9:25a) Know and understand from the issuing of the word to return and rebuild Jerusalem:

“With the rise of the anointed leader in 538 bce, the beginning of the seven “weeks” can be placed forty-nine years earlier at 587 bce. This is notable as the year that the Babylonians destroyed the Jerusalem temple and that Judah lost its statehood. This seven “week” period, therefore, represents the forty-nine-year hiatus in anointed leadership (Davidic and/or priestly) within Jerusalem.”

“The verse does not include the years before the decree to rebuild the city.”

It does if you don’t butcher the text like you do.

“seven and 62 periods of seven years = 483 years – to either the birth or baptism of Messiah.”

The BS meter is again going off the charts! Plus, you shoot yourself in the foot by saying that the period will end with “either the birth or baptism of Messiah”, when the text says that it will end with the…wait for it…DEATH of the “anointed one”:

“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.”

Nothing there about the birth or baptism of your mangod. So you nuked your own argument! Stop lying for Jesus. 😉

“It has nothing to do with the 70 year exile as that is already finished. (see Daniel 9:1-2)”

The first seven weeks were included in this 70 year period.

Not only that, this “Darius the Mede” of Daniel 9:1 is a made-up historical figure. But if we assume that he was the one to overthrow the Babylonian Empire, then he would have to be Cyrus the Great.

Moreover, since the fall of Babylon happened in 539 BC, and Cyrus made his famous decree to repatriate the Jews the following year, that means only a period of 47 years (586-539=47). In order for the full 70 years to be completed, it would have ended in 516 BC. As was noted earlier, the fuzzy math can be chalked up to the author’s finagling with the numbers due to his lack of historical knowledge. Athas argues that the beginning of the 70 years could have been 605 BC. If we begin there, it almost lines up with the 70 years.

“The atonement is about what the Messiah will do when He is “cut off”, as in 9:26 and Isaiah 53:8”

Again with the mindless repetition? Just because you are brainwashed apologist who believes his delusions, does not mean the rest of us are.

Your pathetic eisegesis fails because the death of the anointed one was supposed to be followed up by the last “week” (seven years). The “ruler” would make a deal, halfway through which he desecrated the temple:

“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.[g] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[h] In the middle of the ‘seven’[i] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[j] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”

This did not happen with Jesus. There was no “covenant” between the Romans and Jews that lasted for 7 years. But there was a “covenant” between Antiochus IV and some Hellenistic Jews, which led to the desecration of the temple when Antiochus IV erected the statue of Zeus.

Boy Kendra, you must be very radioactive at this point. You have nuked yourself multiple times! LOL!!

of Moore Theological College (Australia) argues that that “7 weeks” and the “62 weeks” are separate periods, and so he renders 9:25 as the following:
“(9:25a) Know and understand from the issuing of the word to return and rebuild Jerusalem:
(9:25b) Until an anointed leader there will be seven “weeks”.
(9:25c) In sixty-two “weeks” you will have returned with street and conduit27 rebuilt, but with the anguish of the times.”

He even admitted in his article that his view is a new view. And at the beginning of his article he makes the crazy claim that 490 years is really 441 years!!

“A new suggestion for interpreting the seventy “weeks” in Daniel 9 is offered here. By dismissing unwarranted assumptions that are often smuggled into interpretation, an alternative is pursued which sees the three periods within the seventy “weeks” as not entirely sequential. Rather, the first seven “weeks” are seen to overlap with the sixty-two “weeks”. Through this technique, the author of Daniel manages to fit a schema of seventy “weeks” (490 years) into an actual period of 441 years.”

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Also separating the seven sevens from the 62 sevens was done arbitrarily, in order to somehow squeeze the 49 years into the other period, when it seems obvious that the 490 years are 49 + 434 + 7.

the full sentence is combined by the Hebrew “and” (waw, vav, ו )

also, at the end of his article, he admits that his view is a “new understanding of this passage”:

“In conclusion, this new understanding of the seventy “weeks” . . . ”

I don’t have time for more right now. Admittedly, this passage has many different interpretations.

Faiz,
I wish you peace and will refrain from behaving badly by insulting you back the way you constantly do to me. I don’t expect you to study the next two links I am going to give, but I offer them for the open minded and sincere seekers of truth as alternatives to what Faiz has offered here.

This is a good article on the Daniel 9 passage by Presbyterian minister and scholar, Kenneth Gentry:

Shamoun’s articles were good also; and Faiz did not refute them. The articles and scholars Faiz used are not persuasive, and full of novel ideas that stretch credulity, especially the one that admitted he was making 490 equal 441.

2nd article for the sincere seeker of truth:

This article answers the questions that we all have about Darius the Mede. The author shows his view is confirmed by Xenophon and Josephus. Most Evangelicals understand him as a vice-regent king under Cyrus who was from Median descent, who was given rulership over the area of Babylon that Cyprus conquered as ruler over all of the Persian Empire. Many Caesars and Emperors in history did this.

Another idea is 2) 66-73 AD fell not within the weeks but rather was a consequence of the weeks. In this view the 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul and Christ is the one who brings and end to sacrifice and offering, so the crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week. I find either one of these usable at present.”

I personally prefer the other option, of the 70th week being understood as referring to the period of time from about 27 A.D. to 34 A.D. This view has some advantages, IMO, over other interpretations. 1) As with the interpretation detailed above, this interpretation corresponds to a fulfillment of the 70 weeks before or in relation to the destruction of the 2nd temple and fall of Jerusalem. This seems to be a more natural and less forced interpretation of the text rather than to bypass the destruction of a 2nd temple/fall of Jerusalem and focus on a still-future establishment and destruction of a 3rd temple with accompanying destruction of the city. 2) Unlike the above interpretation, this interpretation makes the 70th week continuous with the previous 69 weeks. 3) More information can possibly be gleaned about Christ’s ministry with this interpretation, as shall now be demonstrated.

I agree with that – the last week (last 7 years) seems to be from Messiah’s baptism (26 AD) to 34 AD(stoning of Stephen and conversion of Saul – gospel going out to the Gentiles)
in the middle of the week, the covenant will be confirmed with many. – this is Jesus’ death as the confirmation of the covenant in His blood that He made at the Lord’s supper – and His death is what ends all sacrifices and also provides redemption for “the many” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28 – notice the phrase “for the many”) This is also the view that Kenneth Gentry expressed in the link I gave earlier.

I hope sincere seekers of truth will take the time to read these from a conservative Christian viewpoint.

Ken, here’s the utter decimation of this car salesman’s sad attempt of dating the decree to 538 BC and its culmination with the murder of Onias, courtesy of Tektonics. I’m sure this fraud will love it as well since the only BS is what he types and what comes out of his filthy mouth:

Daniel 9:24-27

Lastly, the author discusses Daniel 9:24-27, which can be found here.

Christians tend to get quite emphatic about these verses. They say, “It predicts the time of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem to the DAY. To the EXACT DAY”, and then they jab their finger in the air or pound the table to show how certain they are.

Of course, since no one knows for sure when Jesus entered Jerusalem, no one can know that a prophecy correctly predicts it. There are other problems.

The verses describe “seventy weeks”, i.e. seventy groups of seven years, 490 years, starting with “the command to restore and to build Jerusalem” (v 25) and ending with the time for Israel to “finish the transgression, and to make and end of sins” and other things (v 24).

We do not subscribe to the interpretation that is used to predict the actual day of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem and thus will not be defending it. However, we do believe that this is a prophecy which accurately predicts the timing of the Messiah’s ministry and death. More on that will be discussed just below, but first we will list the two translations of these 4 verses that the author lists on his page. For a side-by-side comparison, a chart is provided on the author’s page. Here we will just paste the KJV translation followed by the 1917 translation by the Jewish Publication Society (both listed by the author):

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. [KJV]

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and upon the wing of detestable things shall be that which causeth appalment; and that until the extermination wholly determined be poured out upon that which causeth appalment.’ [JPS]

Before moving on to the author’s objections, we will give a brief summary of the understanding of how the 70 weeks should be divided that we will endorse.

The starting date for the 70 weeks (which we shall justify below) is 457 B.C. Sixty nine weeks (constituting 483 years) takes us to the date 27 A.D. JPH notes at this point two possible understandings of the 70th week, each of which he finds to be plausible: “Many have written on the subject of how the coming of Jesus precisely fulfilled the timing of this passage on terms of the first 69 weeks, and we have no reason to dispute or discuss that here. What is at issue is the last or 70th week. The dispensational paradigm holds that this 70th week is on hold until a future time called the Tribulation. I disagree. The 70th week, or last 7-year period, transpired either around the crucifixion of Jesus (ending around the time of Paul’s conversion), giving the Jews time to accept him as Messiah (during which the punishment for this rejection was determined), or possibly during the war on the Jews from 66-73 AD (which may have allowed a 40 year gap, programmatic of the Exodus, for Jesus to still be accepted, between 30-70) though that seven “weeks” need not be part of Daniel’s 70.” (Source)

As to how the 66-73 A.D. understanding could fit the 70th week, JPH notes in the same article:

“The people of the prince that will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” — obviously this is fully interpretable as the Romans under Vespasian (with Titus perhaps, as Vespasian’s son, qualifying as the “prince”) destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. It was so interpreted by Josephus, by ancient rabbis, and by medieval rabbis [Miller, 268]. It’s also possible to see Jesus as the “prince” using Rome’s armies to judge Israel (as God used Assyria and Babylon previously) and noting Jewish responsibility for the war, thus making the Jews the “people”. It gets hairier here:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” — the dispensational paradigm sees this as a case of the Antichrist (“he”) signing a peace treaty with the Jews, and then halfway through the Tribulation period putting a stop to re-established Jewish sacrifices. But this interpretation works its way by applying the pronoun “he” back to the “prince” of the people who will come. “Prince” is of course the most obvious antecedent, if placement is all that is to be considered, but the object of the phrase is the people, not the prince.

“The week here may or may not be identical with the 70th week. Whatever the case, we have two possible interpretations: 1) it was in the midst of the 7-year war — in 70 — that “he”, meaning not the prince of the people, but rather, the Messiah in verse 26 — confirmed (which is to say, verified — the word here means to strengthen [sic] or prevail, not merely make or create) the covenant with “many” (if the Jews are in mind, why not say the “your people”? — on the other hand, cf. Matthew 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”) by delivering the promised judgment against Jerusalem, predicted in more detail in the Olivet Discourse. In the middle of this week — in 70 — this God-ordained judgment “cause[d] the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”. (For what it is worth, liberal commentators who make the “Messiah” out to be Onias III or another Maccabbean-era priest see the “Messiah” as the one who confirmed the covenant; see Hartman and DiLella, 251, and Lacocque, 993.) Another idea is 2)66-73 AD fell not within the weeks but rather was a consequence of the weeks. In this view the 70th week ended with the conversion of Paul and Christ is the one who brings and end to sacrifice and offering, so the crucifixion is in the middle of the 70th week. I find either one of these usable at present.”

I personally prefer the other option, of the 70th week being understood as referring to the period of time from about 27 A.D. to 34 A.D. This view has some advantages, IMO, over other interpretations. 1) As with the interpretation detailed above, this interpretation corresponds to a fulfillment of the 70 weeks before or in relation to the destruction of the 2nd temple and fall of Jerusalem. This seems to be a more natural and less forced interpretation of the text rather than to bypass the destruction of a 2nd temple/fall of Jerusalem and focus on a still-future establishment and destruction of a 3rd temple with accompanying destruction of the city. 2) Unlike the above interpretation, this interpretation makes the 70th week continuous with the previous 69 weeks. 3) More information can possibly be gleaned about Christ’s ministry with this interpretation, as shall now be demonstrated.

Here again are verses 26-27 with the pertinent parts for our discussion emphasized in CAPS: “(26) AND AFTER THREESCORE AND TWO WEEKS SHALL MESSIAH BE CUT OFF, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. (27) AND HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK: AND IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Many commentators identify the “prince that shall come that shall destroy the city and sanctuary” as the same subject as the “he” that “shall confirm the covenant with many for one week” at the beginning of verse 27. The key to our understanding, on the other hand, is to identify the one that is “cut off” in verse 26 as the same subject discussed (at least in the first part) in verse 27. In other words, the subject that is “cut off” in verse 26 (which Christian commentators agree refers to the Messiah) is the same as the one that shall “confirm the covenant with many….”

1) The 69 weeks, beginning at the starting date we proposed earlier (app. 457 A.D.), would take us up to about 27 A.D. Although the timing of Christ’s crucifixion is uncertain, and thus so is the beginning of His ministry, the 27 A.D. date would be a good approximation for the latter event. If we understand that in verse 27 the ministry of Jesus and the 70th week is being described, then this would seem to fit well with certain aspects of Christ’s ministry. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:” would be applicable, in this case, to the fact that Israel was still God’s covenant people, although Christ warned that this would soon change (Matthew 21:28-44) as a result of their rejection and execution of Him. This would explain why Jesus largely restricted His ministry to the Jews and instructed His disciples only to preach to the Jews during His earthly ministry (Matthew 10:5-6). Jesus also encouraged the continuation of sacrificial offerings as well prior to His crucifixion. He told certain people that He had healed, for instance, to make their obligatory gift offerings as a result of the good that had come their way (e.g. Matthew 8:1-4).

2) “….and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…” would indicate that in the middle of this 70th week (which would take us to about 31 A.D. under this paradigm) something would happen to cause the sacrificial offerings to cease. Of course, we know that sacrifices were made by Jews until 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed. However, at the point of Christ’s crucifixion, the value of sacrificial offerings ceased to be of value since the final, and obviously most important and ultimate, sacrifice had been made. When Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the Temple separating the most holy place from the holy place was torn (cf. e.g. Matthew 27:51). This was an indicator that man could now receive atonement through the blood shed by Jesus rather than that of bulls, goats, etc. being administered by a priest. It should also be added that understanding verse 27 as referring to Jesus would correspond to the length of Christ’s ministry, which was about 3 and 1/2 years. The end of the 70th week would take us to 34 A.D., which as JPH noted earlier, is about the time that Paul was converted. This is significant since Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles (although, of course, Peter and the other disciples also preached to the Gentiles–cf. Acts 10). This marked the point that “the transgression was finished” (Daniel 9:24) as the 70 weeks were complete. The Gospel was to go to the Gentiles and all Jews that did not accept the Messiah were cut off from being members of God’s covenant people, or as Paul describes, the natural branches were removed and the unnatural branches could be engrafted (Romans 11). This scenario, of course, would place the destruction of the Temple (described in 9:27b.) after the completion of the 70 weeks.

3) “….and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate” could refer, we submit, either to Titus or the Jews. Understanding it in either way would make the sequence of events describing the two subjects in verses 26 and 27 follow an alternating literary pattern thusly:

A = “Messiah shall be cut off,….”
B = “people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary….”
A’ = “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:….”‘
B’= “and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate….”
Under this scenario, “A” would be referring to the “anointed one” and “B” to Titus (“the prince” and “desolator”) or the Jews (“people of the prince” and “desolator”).

We favor understanding the references to “the people of the prince” and “desolator” as referring to the Jews. Before we delve into why, it may be helpful to comment upon the translation of 9:27b. There are several translations that render 9:27b differently than that seen in the KJV. Consider, for instance, the NASB version:

“And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations WILL COME ONE who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” (emphasis added)

A differentiation between the one that will “make a firm covenant with the many for one week” and the “one who makes desolate” is more explicit here than in some other translations. Other translations that allow explicitly for this differentiation include the MSG, AMP, NLV, ESV, CEV, NKJV, and ASV. [This information was gleaned from the helpful Bible Gateway site.] The author’s Jewish translation (JPS-quoted above) also makes the argument that two different figures are being described in this verse plausible as well.

With this background, let us now delve into 9:26-27. Here are the verses again, according to the NASB:

“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

In this case, our understanding of the anointed one being “cut off” and the one that will “make a firm covenant with many for one week” remains the same, referring to the Messiah. However, instead of the “people of the prince” referring to the Roman soldiers under Titus, we propose that the prince is the same anointed one in the first part of the verse and the people being, of course, the anointed one’s people, which according to this paradigm would mean the Jews. This interpretation presents an apparent problem in that it was the Romans that sacked the city, not the Jews. However, we may be able to resolve this by considering that it is ultimately due to the rebellion of God’s people that this calamity befell them. We can use the prayer of Daniel in 9:1-19 as a control. In verse 2, Daniel refers to Jeremiah’s prophecy that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years. Daniel then, in subsequent verses, describes why this happened and ultimately who was responsible. Consider, for instance, verses 10-15: “Neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice. And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.”

In verses 16-19, Daniel asks God to restore His people and turn away His anger from Jerusalem. While it was Nebuchadnezzar that sacked Jerusalem, it was because of the sins of the Israelites that God punished them with this 70 year exile. The same principle can be applied also to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans (cf. also Deuteronomy 28:15-68]. Jesus also, places the blame for the coming destruction at Israel’s door: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:36-38) [Consider also the parable of the wicked tenants and parable of the king’s marriage for his son (Matthew 21:33-44 and 22:1-14, respectively)]

With that in mind, who is this “one that will come who makes desolate.”? Ted Noel postulates, regarding this: “About AD 66, the Zealots and other groups of rebels fomented a revolt to throw off the Roman yoke. Although there were several leaders, such as Simon ben Giora, the most influential was John, son of Levi, of Gischala in Galilee. The revolt was in itself an abomination, but worse was to follow. The Zealots murdered over 12,000 priests. Later, as the revolt reached its peak in AD 70, over 8,000 were murdered in the Temple grounds and left unburied, a further abomination. The bloody rebels used the Temple itself as their final stronghold in Jerusalem. The end of the revolt was the complete destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, with loss of a million Jewish lives. The desolation was complete….The ‘abomination’ was the Jewish revolt and its aftermath. The one who made desolate was John, son of Levi, who stood pars pro toto as the corporate image of revolt against God. He, through his complicit countrymen, caused the desolation of Jerusalem. And complete destruction, just as decreed in Deuteronomy 28:15 and the verses following, was poured out on him and the Jews with him. The handful of survivors was dispersed, and Jerusalem became a Roman city, off limits to Jews.” [(Noel, Ted. “I Want to be Left Behind.” 2002. pgs. 65-66) My thanks also go to Noel for being the inspiration behind this particular understanding of the last 2 verses in the passage.]

To this it should be added that, when the Romans entered the city, it was not their intention to destroy the Temple, but this resulted from the resistance of the rebels.

“The responsibility of the Jews in Jerusalem cannot be denied. At the urging of the Zealots, they rebelled against their Roman overlords. Titus’ army besieged the city, which fell into cannibalism when food supplies ran out. Eventually the Roman army was able to enter the city, but was under orders not to cause any harm to the temple. But Zealots inside the temple walls resisted, and eventually a torch was thrown in by a soldier. The resulting fire was so hot that the gold in the temple melted and ran out. Resistance to the last man led to total destruction of the city.

“The Romans physically destroyed the city, but the Jews were responsible. In Hebrew thought, this was a judgment from God on a rebellious people. In fact, it was part of the covenant curses described in Deuteronomy 28. The Romans were the agents of God. Thus, the people of Jesus, the Jews, did destroy Jerusalem.” [Ibid. 59]

So, in summary regarding Daniel 9:26-27, we propose 2 possible interpretations, each of which approaches the text in the “A, B, A’, B'” pattern we suggested earlier. In both cases, the “anointed one” is the one that is “cut off” after the 69th week and who “confirms the covenant with many for one week.” The prince of verse 26 and desolator of verse 27, then, would, under the first proposal, refer to Titus. The “people of the prince,” of course, according to this paradigm, would be the Romans. According to the latter proposal, the “prince” refers to the “anointed one” and the “people of the prince” and “desolator” refer to the Jews, most particularly the ones that instigated the revolt which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem along with the Temple. Before concluding, we might note a few additional strengths to this latter proposal. 1) The prince (“nagiyd”) in verses 25 and 26 refer to the same character rather than 2 different ones. 2) The flow of the passage appears to be more fluid in this case, as verse 26 describes the “anointed one” with the “people of the prince” referring to the people of the “anointed one,” and not a second character. 3) Postulating verse 27a as referring to the work of the “anointed one” of verse 26 then becomes more natural. 4) Given that the 70 weeks is referring to what is “determined upon thy [Daniel’s] people and upon thy holy city,….” (verse 24), it is consistent with the overall theme of the passage that the desolator in 9:27b refers to the same people upon whom the “determination” is made in the first place.

With this in mind, we shall now consider the objections of the author:

Christians agree that the verses PRECISELY predict Jesus entering Jerusalem (or maybe the crucifixion), but they can’t agree how. One Christian webpage says the starting point is 458 BCE, while another says only 445 BCE will do. A third says the phrase “cut off” refers to Jesus’ crucifixion, while a fourth says it means Christ’s leaving heaven.

While there is some disagreement on the date and to what the date points, I have yet personally to see a Christian commentary that does not understand “cut off” as referring to the death of the “anointed one.” Regardless of which date is correct or method of counting, this prophecy still brings us up to about 30 A.D., give or take a few years, details a very important set of events to take place, including atonement for iniquity (verse 24), which has to do with the death (“cut off”) of some anointed one. The core prophecy remains intact in spite of the divergences among commentators.

In other words — missionaries, get your act together before you come preaching to Jews. Though there is really no need to refute them (since they refute one another),….

As mentioned before, the core of the prophecy remains intact regardless of some of the divergences in interpretation. All of the major Christian interpretations of which I’m aware agree that an “anointed one” had to be “cut off” between 27 and 70 A.D. and that connected to this event would be the accomplishment of the six important events listed in verse 24, including of course, providing “atonement for iniquity.” Most interpretations also seem to agree that these events were to take place prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. It would be faulty to simply dismiss all interpretations because of divergences in the understanding of some of the secondary details. Besides, the fact that there exists disagreement on some of the secondary details of the prophecy does not mean that there is not one truly sound interpretation that may be gleaned from the text. We could complain in response that anti-missionaries need to “get their acts together” and come up with only one counter-interpretation for each Christian claim regarding the various Messianic prophecies. For instance, the author’s contention that the Holocaust Jews fulfill at least part of the role of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 does not necessarily make all anti-missionary arguments, including this one, bad, because of the fact that others may see it differently (such as with contentions that the servant in question refers to all of Israel’s history, or the Israel that suffered the exile under Nebuchadnezzar). What if we were to conclude the following based on these divergences?: “Since Jews can’t even agree as to how Israel fulfills the Isaiah prophecy in question, it obviously cannot be referring to Israel. There is no need to refute them since they refute one another.” We figure the author would find this logic quite faulty, and rightfully so. As noted in that section of this article, however, this understanding, as with the others, is to be dismissed on other grounds.

….I’ll discuss the modern missionary position as it described by the Jews for Jesus types and others on the web, and I’ll give the Jewish response to their claims. If I misstate specifically what THESE claims are, let me know.

To make this 490 year span come out right, the missionaries do several things (as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up); 1) they choose an unlikely starting point, 2) they ignore the end point, 3) they invent a new system of writing numbers, 4) they invent a new kind of year, and 5) they add a word not in the original text. That they interpret many Hebrew words and phrases differently than Jews do is legitimate. But that list of 1 through 5 — well, read the explanation below and decide for yourself.

Let’s discuss the individual items:

1) Starting date: Daniel’s says “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem”, which is what Cyrus (whom Isaiah refers to as “the Lord’s Messiah”) had commanded in 538 BCE (see Is. 44:28). But Cyrus’s order is too early for the missionaries (some even admit this is their reasoning), so they say the Daniel verse refers to the order in 445 BCE by one of Cyrus’ successors, Artaxerxes, to resume the restoration which had already begun, but had been temporarily interrupted. is possible, but not likely

We would ask in response, first of all, if the starting date is 538 B.C., how is this prophecy fulfilled, according to the author? Secondly, Michael Brown notes that the problem of starting the countdown at 538 B.C. with the degree of Cyrus is that it applied only to the rebuilding of the Temple and not Jerusalem itself, as the prophecy requires (cf. II Chronicles 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4). A later decree in 521 B.C. is made by Darius which renews the earlier decree of Cyrus, yet still only concerns the Temple. (Ezra 6:1-12). We should note here that, up to now, there is no good reason whatsoever to take 538 B.C. or 521 B.C. as our starting point, as verse 25 explicitly states that the 70 weeks are to begin with the restoration of Jerusalem. These dates have only to do with the Temple, not the city. The decree of Artaxerxes I in 457 B.C. centers on the rebuilt Temple (Ezra 7:12-24), yet goes a step further in verses 25-26:

“And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.”

We see here that in addition to Temple funding, Ezra is to establish the legal system once again in Jerusalem. This extends beyond Temple construction, and makes 457 B.C. a more plausible starting date than the two previous ones. Other relevant texts, pointed out by Brown, indicate that this decree extends beyond Temple construction and toward the restoration of Jerusalem as well (Ezra 9:9; Nehemiah 1:4). [Brown (2): 106-107]

Ted Noel writes,

“The final decree is found in Ezra 7. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, after the temple is completed (6:15), Ezra is granted a decree allowing any Israelite I the Medo-Persian empire to return to Jerusalem (7:13). The king ‘freely offered to the God of Israel” gold and silver (7:15) as well as the last of the sacred vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar. Other offerings are included from ‘all the silver and gold which you shall find in the whole province of Babylon’ (7:16). These are to be ‘offered on the altar of the house of God which is in Jerusalem’ (7:17). Other specifics are included which add up to a full restoration of the worship of God in a fully furnished temple. Artaxerxes then continues with a full restoration of civil authority for the returned exiles. Magistrates and judges are to be appointed to apply the law of God in Judea (7:25-26). He even provides for teachers of the law.

“This decree fully restores Jerusalem. The autonomy of the city is explicitly re-established under the laws of God. The rebuilt temple can now be properly used for the worship of God, complete with all the sacred vessels. Artaxerxes further indicates his submission to God by providing gifts for the temple from both the royal treasury and the people of the land. Even the treasures of neighboring provinces (7:21-22) are required to contribute. But most important is the reason stated in the decree.

“Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be done with zeal for the house of the God of heaven, lest there be wrath against the kingdom of the king and his sons.” (Ezra 7:23)

“Artaxerxes makes it clear that he is submitting his authority to the God of heaven. By all the related actions in the decree he makes it clear that all of his subordinates are to respect Yahweh as well. Ezra confirms this effect (7:28). In this way Jerusalem becomes more prominent in the world. It is ‘built up.” This is a complete and exact match to the specifications given by Gabriel. Artaxerxes has issued the decree ‘to restore and to build up Jerusalem.’ As a final note, Ezra identifies this decree as something God has put in the king’s heart (7:27), suggesting that Ezra understands its prophetic significance.

“Daniel 9:25 says Jerusalem will be ‘restored and built up.’ We do not need to revisit the derivation of this language, since it is identical to what we have just covered. But the next phrase requires attention. The KJV says the restoration will be ‘with streets and a wall.’ The NASB reads ‘with plaza and moat.’ The first word, rehob, means a wide place. Since streets were generally narrow, ‘plaza’ or ‘square’ (RSV) is the preferred reading. The second word is one we have seen before: charats.

“The root meaning of charats is ‘to cut.’ Thus we find that the NASB and NIV indicate that there will be a moat or trench. But Jerusalem has never had a moat, and the Old Testament only uses charats in the concrete sense once [footnote reference: Lev. 22:22 uses charats to refer to injured or mutilated animals unfit for sacrifice]. Its primary usage is with regard to decision-making. [footnote reference: Perhaps the best example of this is Joel 3:14, where the word is used in the repeated phrase ‘Valley of Decision.'”] In Old Testament times civil decisions were carried out in the square near the city gate. If we read this phrase as ‘square and decision making,’ then we have encountered an idiom which describes having both the place and power of independent civil authority. This is a perfect description of the civil autonomy granted in the decree of Ezra 7. No further search is necessary. When properly translated, the specifications in Daniel 9:25 are matched in exacting detail by the decree given by Artaxerxes in his seventh year.” [Source: Noel, Ted. “I Want to be Left Behind.” 2002. 48-50]

So what happened between 446-444 B.C. for various commentators to ascribe significance? The key text is Nehemiah 2:5-8:

“And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchers, that I may build it. And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? And when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time. Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah; And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.”

It is understandable, especially in light of the KJV translation, that many would understand this event to begin the 70 weeks. After all, this is a provision allowed by the king for Nehemiah to return to Judah and build the wall of the city. However, in light of the linguistic analysis provided by Noel in the above quote, the 457 B.C. decree seems to be a more suitable description. The largest problem, it seems, with attributing the starting date at the time of this event is that it doesn’t even seem to be a decree. This is an incident where Nehemiah is given permission to go to Judah and perform the acts described in the verses in question, but it is questionable it seems to call this an actual royal decree as the prophecy in Daniel 9:25 requires. On the other hand, the event of 457 B.C. is clearly referred to as a decree (cf. Ezra 7:13).

2) Ending date: Missionaries say the phrase “after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off” refers to Jesus’ entrance to Jerusalem. If that occurred in the 69th week — better yet, let’s use the word “septad” to avoid confusion — then all those wonderful things (end of sin, everlasting righteousness, etc) should have come about a long time ago, certainly before the Romans leveled Jerusalem. Obviously this has not happened. So how could Jesus’ death have occurred in the 69th septad of Daniel’s predicted time span?

In response we could ask, since this prophecy was to be fulfilled prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple, if it was not fulfilled by Jesus, who and how was it fulfilled? On the other hand, according to the Christian paradigm, this prophecy was fulfilled perfectly in Jesus.

1) “….to finish the transgression,….” As hinted at earlier, this was the time left for the Jews (“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,….”), consummated by the coming of the Messiah at the end, to remain as God’s people. With the “transgression finished,” the Gospel went to the Gentiles and Jerusalem was destroyed. Israel now consists of “spiritual Jews,” those Jews and Gentiles that accept Jesus as Messiah. Alternatively, this could be referring to the time when sin is finally defeated.

2) “….to make an end of sins,….” According to the Christian paradigm, the death of Christ served as the mechanism for how sin was defeated. Through His death, all men and women can find atonement through His blood and be counted righteous before God! Until this sacrifice was made, the stranglehold of sin upon humanity could not be broken. Brown notes: “As other New Testament writers explain, everything necessary for forgiveness and redemption was accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus. It need only be applied and appropriated (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14-21). [Brown (2): 96]

3) “….to make reconciliation for iniquity,….” This, of course, is the whole essence of the Christian paradigm. It is through Christ’s atoning death that we may be reconciled to God in spite of our sins.

4) “….to bring in everlasting righteousness,….” Through the death of Jesus Christ we may be cleansed of all unrighteousness:

“For even here unto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, THAT WE, BEING DEAD TO SINS, SHOULD LIVE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (I Peter 2:21-24, emphasis added)

“Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; THAT WE MIGHT BE MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM.” (II Corinthians 5:20-21, emphasis added)

5) “….to seal up the vision and prophecy,….” Brown notes in regard to this:

“This could mean ‘to authenticate’ or ‘to hide.’ Either one would be applicable to Jesus, since (1) his coming fully validated the prophetic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures (if he did not come at the appointed time, this would have invalidated both vision and prophecy), and (2) God judged those who rejected him with hardness of heart, thus hiding the truth of the prophetic Scriptures from them.” [Brown (2): 97]

6) “….to anoint the most Holy [place]….” One question to be asked here is whether it is possible that the “most holy place” could refer to a person. Brown notes one possible exception in the Hebrew Scriptures of “most holy” (i.e. “holy of holies”) referring to a person. That comes from 1 Chronicles 23:13. To quote Brown:

“It is true that most translations understand this verse to state that Aaron was set apart ‘to consecrate the most holy THINGS.’ (NIV; cf., e.g., KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NLT). Yet there are other translations, both Christian and Jewish (e.g., NASB and Stone), that interpret the Hebrew with reference to Aaron himself: ‘Aaron was set apart to sancrify HIM as most holy’ (NASB; for he Stone rendering, see n. 178)

Brown also notes:
“As far back as the eighteenth century, C. Schottgen cited no less an authority than Nachmanides as having stated that ‘the Holy of holies is naught else than the Messiah, the sanctified one of the sons of David.'[Brown (2): 97-98–(Brown’s source for this is “C. Schottgen, as cited in Montgmery, “Daniel,” 398.)] This view may also be supported by the Septuagint, and it is certinly supported by the Syriac Peshitta, composed in the first centuries of this era.” [Brown (2): 98–(Brown’s source here is Keil, “Daniel,” in C.F. Keil and F. Delitzxch, “Commentary on the Old Testament,” 1028-33)]

Alternatively, it is possible that the “most holy” in Daniel is referring to the formation of the church. Notice what we find in Isaiah 61:1:

“The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;….” Jesus applies this passage to Himself (in Luke 4:18-19). It seems that there is a very plausible correlation in the passage of being anointed and having the spirit of God come upon one. It was shortly after Christ’s baptism [(cf. Luke 3:21-23) where the Spirit descended upon Him] that He began His public ministry. Ten days after Christ’s ascension into heaven, the Holy Spirit likewise fell upon the disciples (Acts 2:1-4) and they subsequently began preaching the Gospel to the Jews (Acts 2:22-40 and so on….) Paul also refers to the church as God’s temple:

“And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (II Corinthians 6:16)

As the Shekinah of God dwelt within the Temple building, He now lives inside of the “spiritual Temple,” consisting of people that have been redeemed by Jesus Christ.

One other possibility worth noting would be a reference to the Temple in heaven described in Hebrews and Revelation. We do not wish to speculate what exactly this Temple may be, but the imagery certainly is prevalent in the aforementioned books. After the author of Hebrews describes in some detail the rituals and furniture associated with the first temple (Hebrews 9:1-5), he writes:

“Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. BUT CHRIST BEING COME AN HIGH PRIEST OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, BY A GREATER AND MORE PERFECT TABERNACLE, NOT MADE WITH HANDS, THAT IS TO SAY, NOT OF THIS BUILDING; NEITHER BY THE BLOOD OF GOATS AND CALVES, BUT BY HIS OWN BLOOD HE ENTERED IN ONCE INTO THE HOLY PLACE, HAVING OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION FOR US. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?….For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water; and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. FOR CHRIST IS NOT ENTERED INTO THE HOLY PLACES MADE WITH HANDS, WHICH ARE THE FIGURES OF THE TRUE; BUT INTO HEAVEN ITSELF, NOW TO APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD FOR US: NOR YET THAT HE SHOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, AS THE HIGH PRIEST ENTERETH INTO THE HOLY PLACE EVERY YEAR WIHT BLOOD OF OTHERS; FOR THEN MUST HE OFTEN HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD: BUT NOW ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD HATH HE APPEARED TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: SO CHRIST WAS OFFERED TO BEAR THE SINS OF MANY; AND UNTO THEM THAT LOOK FOR HIM SHALL HE APPEAR THE SECOND TIME WITHOUT SIN UNTO SALVATION. (Hebrews 9:6-14; 19-28, emphasis added)

Here we see clear imagery of Christ, our High Priest, entering into the “tabernacle made without hands” offering us atonement through His own blood. In this sense, one can quite plausibly state that it was this Temple in heaven that Christ entered (whatever we are to make of this) that has been anointed and to which all people may come through acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf.

Missionaries say that “the clock was stopped”. Daniel doesn’t mention any stoppage of the clock. Try telling that to your mortgage company.

Well, the proposal of gaps in between the sets of weeks mentioned by Daniel is not peculiar to Christian interpretation. Brown details how the famous Jewish Biblical and Talmudic interpreter of the 11th century A.D. Rashi performs a similar exercise. [Brown (2): 88-90] However, one of the strengths of the above interpretation of the 70 weeks (from 457 B.C. to 34 A.D.) is the fact that there are no gaps in time. However, given the fact that Daniel broke down the 70 weeks into sets of 7, 62, and 1, we should not exclude the possibility of short chronological gaps. However, it appears necessary given the data that our time boundaries be confined to between 457 B.C. as the beginning of the 70 weeks (since this is when the order to restore Jerusalem, and not just the Temple, first took place) and 73 A.D. as the ending of the 70 weeks (since, at the latest, the first 69 weeks and at least half of the last week must be completed by the time of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem). And, of course, speaking of clock stoppages, we would ask the author how Daniel’s 70 weeks was all fulfilled prior to 70 A.D. if not through Jesus?

3) Numbering: Part of verse 25 in the KJV reads ” … seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built …” Note the punctuation. The KJV is combining the numbers 7 and 60 and 2 into one number — 69 to get the 69 septad prophecy. (Note that the JPS separates these into two numbers — 7 and 62, each indicating a different event.) KJV usage is unprecedented. The Tanach (and everyone else) gives numbers almost the same way as English — sixty and nine. You literally never see something like “seven and sixty and two.” To make the prophecy fit, missionaries have invented a new numbering system for the Tanach.

This objection appears to be arguing, as per what can be seen by the JPS translation, that an anointed one would come after 7 weeks. Of course, we see that AFTER the 62 weeks from verse 26 that an anointed one would be “cut off.” Thus, the Christian position is not hindered by the possibility of two anointed ones. But, are there really two anointed ones being spoken of in the text? James Price argues against this possibility:

“(2) Lippard, based on the work of Sigal, points out that the punctuation of the Hebrew text, as indicated by the Masoretic accents, places a major division of the verse between the seven weeks of years and the sixty-two weeks of years in verse 25. This makes the passage state that the Messiah will come after the seven weeks of years, and another Messiah after the sixty-two weeks. He is right, the Masoretic accent known as Athnach (the second strongest of the disjunctive accents) separates the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks. This would seem almost conclusive if one were satisfied with shallow scholarship. But one must know more than the elementary concepts of the Masoretic accents before such conclusions can be made. The most important principle regarding the Masoretic accents is that they are primarily musical and only secondarily grammatical.

William Wickes, the most highly respected authority on the Masoretic accents, stated: “The character of the accentuation is . . . preeminently musical.”[10] Likewise, Israel Yeivin, a modern Masoretic authority wrote that the primary function of the accents “is to represent the musical motifs to which the Biblical text was chanted in the public reading.”[11]

My own research on the Masoretic accents has verified this principle.[12] The placement of the accents of a verse are usually in harmony with the grammar of the Biblical text; but they are governed primarily by the musical demands of cantillation, and especially in poetry (as is this text of Daniel), the musical demands may overrule the grammatical demands. For example, in 1 Chronicles 1:7, a prose section, the text reads: “The sons of Javan were Elisha and Tarshishah, Kittim and Rodanim.” This verse has a predicate with a fourfold compound predicate complement. In this verse the Athnach separates Tarshishah from Kittim. Grammatically there is no reason to place the major division of the verse in the middle of the compound predicate complement. According to the accents the verse should be punctuated “The sons of Javan were Elisha and Tarshishah; Kittim and Rodanim.” Such punctuation is grammatically illogical. But the situation is even worse in 1 Chronicles 1:13-16 which constitutes only one sentence in English (and Hebrew): “Canaan begot Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemrite, and the Hamathite.” This sentence contains a compound object of the verb “begot” with eleven elements each joined with the others by the conjunction “and.” Yet this compound object is divided into four segments by the strongest disjunctive accent in Hebrew: Silluq with Soph Pasuq. There is no grammatical reason to divide this sentence into four segments. The reason for such grammatically illogical divisions is musical, due strictly to cantillation not grammar and syntax.

Such grammatically illogical divisions occur often, especially in poetry. So for example, in the very verse under discussion (Dan 9:25) a rather strong disjunctive accent (Tiphcha) separates “seven” from “weeks,” words that are obviously grammatically related; a disjunctive accent (Garshaim) separates “weeks” from “sixty-two,” again words that are obviously grammatically related; and a second time the rather strong disjunctive accent (Tiphcha) separates “troublesome” from “times,” words that are obviously grammatically related.

So one cannot take an elementary approach to the accents of any verse. The punctuation of a translation, although often guided by the Masoretic accentuation, must be governed by the grammar, syntax, and exposition of the Hebrew text. These linguistic features often must overrule the musical cantillation. So in this passage, the punctuation preferred by Lippard, Sigal, and the RSV divide the verse so that it makes little sense. It calls for the introduction of two different Messiahs where the text obviously refers to only one; otherwise the laws of linguistics expect a distinguisher such as “another” to mark the fact that the second word “Messiah” has a different referent. Otherwise the same referent is expected.” [Price (3)]

4) Duration of a year: 69 septads equals 483 years. If you start at 445 BCE, this would take you to 39 CE, seven years after when most people think that Jesus entered Jerusalem. However, if you subtract 5 days for each year — that is 2,415 days — which is converted to about 6.5 years (bear with me) — that takes you back to about 32 CE. In other words, if you say that a year is only 360 days long, then the time works out. So they say that the septads that Daniel speaks of are composed — not of normal years — but of 360 day years, and call these “Biblical years.” corresponds to a 360 day year. It is longer than standard Jewish year (of 12 lunar months) which is 354 days and is shorter than a solar year or a Jewish leap year (which is 13 lunar months.) Such a year could not have been used in Biblical times because the festivals, which are at least in part agricultural, would have gotten out of sync with the seasons. can this ‘Biblical year’ be other than an invention? When you set your own intervals, you can make anything come out.

As can be gleaned from our study by now, we are in agreement with the author that the years are not to be calculated in this manner. Instead, placing the starting date at 457 B.C. takes us to the time of Christ’s ministry via solar years.

5) Adding to the text: KJV verse 25 says — “from the … commandment to restore … Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince”; the JPS says — “from the … word to restore … Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince,” KJV says “the Messiah” while JPS says “one anointed.” The Hebrew word “moshiac” can mean either (though in the Bible it is usually “an anointed.” The problem with the KJV is the use of the specific adjective “the”. “The Messiah, the Prince” certainly sounds like one very specific person, like Jesus. But the Hebrew text does not have “the.” (in Hebrew, the prefix of the letter ‘hay’) The Hebrew words are “mashiac nageed” — an anointed prince, of whom there were many. KJV has added a word not in the text. what do the verses refer to? Probably the Hanukah story. If you are interested as to why I say this, or disagree with anything else in this page, write me

This objection centers upon the fact that the Hebrew does not contain a definite article to justify the interpretation “the anointed one” over and against “an anointed one.” However, even with this being the case, this would certainly not disqualify Jesus as being the Subject of the text. As we have argued in this response, the elements of this prophecy point very strongly to the time and work of Jesus Christ, indeed AN anointed One of God. Given the import of the work of the anointed one as expounded in verse 24, it is certainly reasonable to postulate that this indeed does refer to the work of THE anointed one even though there is no definite article in the Hebrew. Furthermore, according to Brown, the KJV translation is corroborated by the Septuagint which translates “mashiach” as “tou christou,” or “the anointed one.” The most recent Jewish translation, the Stone edition, also contains this rendering. Brown notes in regards to this:

“This is because the Hebrew language can sometimes specify a particular person or event without using the definite article, as recognized in the standard grammars and, in certain phrases, in virtually all translations. Thus, it is not just any anointed one that the prophecy describes, but one particular anointed one. Some translators, both Christian and Jewish, feel that this concept is best expressed by using the word ‘the’ to identify that particular subject. Second, later Jewish usage made the word ‘mashiach’ into a proper name, as in the Jewish bumper sticker that says, ‘We want Moshiach now!’ For many centuries, in the Jewish mind the word ‘mashiach’ has not simply meant ‘an anointed one’ but rather ‘the anointed one, King Messiah.” Some Christian translations simply interpreted Daniel 9:26 in the light of their own Messianic traditions and views, finding in this verse the most overt reference to the Messiah-identified as such-in the Hebrew Scriptures.” [Brown (2): 91]

In conclusion to this section, we believe that the author’s criticism of the assertion made in many Christian circles about counting the years as if to have “360 days” may be justifiable. However, we believe that the data clearly indicates that the starting date began in 457 B.C. when there was a decree to restore Jerusalem (and not just the Temple) as is clearly stipulated in Daniel 9:25; the first 69 weeks (i.e. 483 years) are to be counted continuously from that point until 27 A.D. in solar years, taking us to the probable time when Jesus began His public ministry; the 70th week must be completed by 73 A.D. (since the Temple’s destruction is to occur, at latest, in the middle of this 70th week), but it is perhaps more exegetically consistent to add the 70th week onto the previous 69 (so there are no gaps in time) taking us up to 34 A.D. as the ending point of the 70 weeks. This latter interpretation requires understanding that the one to confirm the covenant with many for one week in Daniel 9:27 refer to Jesus. “In the midst of the week,” the “anointed one” will “cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease.” This makes sense as referring to Jesus since it corresponds to the length of Christ’s ministry (3.5 years) and it was after this time that Temple sacrifices ceased to be of value since the ultimate sacrifice had just been made, illustrated by the tearing of the Temple veil from top to bottom at the time of Christ’s death. Furthermore, ending the 70th week at 34 A.D. takes us up to the time when the apostle to the Gentiles, Saul of Tarsus, was converted. It was soon after this that the Gospel went to the Gentiles, although the primary thrust of evangelism up to that point had been to fellow Jews. As a result of the rejection of this most important “anointed one” by Israel, the transgression was finished (Daniel 9:24) and the subject of Daniel 9:27b. (which as we noted earlier, could be the Messiah or the ‘prince that is to come’) caused the Temple to be destroyed and Jerusalem along with it.

We would like to add to this that there are other Messianic prophecies which indicate that the Messianic era had to take place prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Consider, first of all, the words of the prophet Malachi:

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ sope: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” (Malachi 3:1-4)

In this text, we see that the Lord speaks of a messenger to precede Him. Christians understand this to be an indicator that the Messiah would have a forerunner, namely John the Baptist. This prophecy also augments the Christian claim that the Messiah would be divine (since the messenger paves the way for the Lord and since the Lord Himself here is called a “messenger of the covenant”). And, of course, the Lord here claims that He shall come to the Temple, which, in retrospect, we realize had to occur prior to its destruction in 70 A.D. Much more could be added regarding the forerunner prophecies, but for the sake of space, we will refer the reader to a more thorough discussion of this topic by Glenn Miller (Included is a discussion predominantly of Isaiah 40:3 with a little on Malachi 3:1).

Brown also discusses a passage in Haggai 2:6-9 in favor of the Christian position that the Messiah was prophesied to visit the 2nd Temple [Cf. Brown (2): 145-148].

Finally, we have the potent prophecy of Genesis 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”

Various Jewish sources consider this passage to be a Messianic prophecy with “Shiloh” denoting the Messiah. This includes the Targum Onkelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to the Pentateuch, the Babylonian Talmud, and the Yalkut [Webster (4): 157-160].

Josh McDowell writes, “The word which is best translated ‘scepter’ in this passage means a ‘tribal staff.’ Each of the 12 tribes of Israel had its own particular ‘staff’ with its name inscribed on it. Therefore, the ‘tribal staff’ or ‘tribal identity’ of Judah was not to pass away before Shiloh came. For centuries Jewish and Christian commentators alike have taken the word ‘Shiloh’ to be a name of the Messiah.

“We remember that Judah had been deprived of its national sovereignty during the 70-year period of the Babylonian captivity; however, it never lost its ‘tribal staff’ or ‘national identity’ during this time. They still possessed their own lawgivers or judges even while in captivity (see Ezra 1:5, 8).

“Thus, according to this Scripture and the Jews of their time, two signs were to take place soon after the advent of the Messiah:

1. Removal of the scepter or identity of Judah.

2. Suppression of the judicial power.

“The first visible sign of the beginning of the removal of the scepter from Judah came about when Herod the Great, who had no Jewish blood, succeeded the Maccabean princes, who belonged to the tribe of Levi and who were the last Jewish kings to have their reign in Jerusalem (Sanhedrin, folio 97, verso.) (Maccabees, Book 2).

“Magath, in his book Jesus before the Sanhedrin, titles his second chapter: ‘The legal power of the Sanhedrin is restricted twenty-three years before the trial of Christ.” This restriction was the loss of the power to pass the death sentence.

“This occurred after the deposition of Archelaus, who was the son and successor of Herod, 11 A.D., or 7 V.E. (Josephus, Ant., Book 17, Chap. 13, 1-5). The procurators, who administered in the Augustus name, took the supreme power of the Sanhedrin away so they could exercise the jus gladii themselves; that is, the sovereign right over life and death sentences. All the nations which were subdued by the Roman Empire were deprived of their ability to pronounce capital sentences. Tacitus says, ‘…The Romans reserved to themselves the right of the sword, and neglected all else.’….

“The Talmud itself admits that ‘a little more than forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the power of pronouncing capital sentences was taken away from the Jews.’ (Talmud, Jerusalem, Sanhedrin, fol. 24, recto.) However, it hardly seems possible that the jus gladii remained in the Jewish hands until that time. It probably had ceased at the time of Coponius, 7 A.D. (Essai sur l’histoire et la geographie de la Palestine, d’apres les Talmuds et la geographie de la Palestine, d’apres les Talmuds et les autres sources Rabbinique, p. 90: Paris, 1867.) Rabbi Rachmon says, ‘When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a general consternation took possession of them; they covered their heads with ashes, and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: “Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!”….

“Once the judicial power was suppressed, the Sanhedrin ceased to be. Yes, the scepter was removed and Judah lost its royal or legal power. And the Jews knew it themselves! ‘Woe unto us, for the scepter has been taken from Judah, and the Messiah has not appeared!’ (Talmud, Bab., Sanhedrin, Chap. 4, fol. 37, recto.). Little did they realize their Messiah was a young Nazarene walking in the midst of them.” [McDowell, Josh. “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” Vol. 1. 168-169.]

The fact that the Jews had lost the power to administer capital punishment around this time, of course, is corroborated by the Gospel accounts where the Jewish leaders had to go to Pontius Pilate to have Jesus crucified.

To wrap up this section on the Biblical Messianic timetable, we recommend Glenn Miller’s detailed article regarding Messianic expectations in 1st century Judaism.

Awww Kendra, you’re so sweet to support your BFF. Unfortunately, you have both been unable to disprove anything I said. That’s what happens with brainwashed crosstian pagans. They convince themselves of their delusions.

Faiz,
You don’t know how to make an intellectual argument, therefore you resort to insults and ad hominem and nutty talk. You are not a good witness for your Islamic religion and you violate Surah 29:46

When Shamoun makes a good argument and uses sources and texts, and avoids insults, etc. he has good material.

HAHAHAHA, what a nice little suck-up you have become for Samantha! Hmmmm, let’s see if we can expose your shameless hypocrisy, shall we? Your master Samantha said:

“Ken, here’s the utter decimation of this car salesman’s sad attempt of dating the decree to 538 BC and its culmination with the murder of Onias, courtesy of Tektonics. I’m sure this fraud will love it as well since the only BS is what he types and what comes out of his filthy mouth”

Hmmm, Samantha seems upset. Maybe the shellacking he received has made him foam at the mouth like a rabid dog and post one of his long rants which no one reads!

But it is not idolatry; since the eternal Son is God by nature / substance, (John 17:5) -One in substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit – The only true God, the Holy Trinity. God is One (Mark 12:29), (three persons in One God – Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1; 20:28) so it is not idolatry.

They were looking forward to the Messiah.
Obviously Moses did – since he came down on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1-8 and parallel accounts in Mark and Luke and spoke with Jesus; therefore, he did hear of Jesus. and Abraham did also as the one coming in the future that would be the Messiah that would come from his seed – Genesis 15:1-6; Genesis 12:3; 22:18

“But it is not idolatry; since the eternal Son is God by nature / substance, (John 17:5) -One in substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit – The only true God, the Holy Trinity. God is One (Mark 12:29), (three persons in One God – Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; John 1:1; 20:28) so it is not idolatry.”

Um, yes it is. When Zeus incarnated himself as a man in Greek mythology, he was still a god to the Greeks. So it is still idolatry.

You worship a flesh and blood man. That IS idolatry by definition.

“You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below” (Deut. 4:15-17).

“He even admitted in his article that his view is a new view. And at the beginning of his article he makes the crazy claim that 490 years is really 441 years!!”

LOL, still not getting it, huh? The author of Daniel has to finagle the math, just like you guys play around with the numbers. You are assuming that the author had a complete chronological knowledge of Babylonian, Persian and Greek history. Such was not the case.

“I don’t have time for more right now. Admittedly, this passage has many different interpretations.”

Exactly, which is why your fanciful interpretations are not at all impressive. There’s hope for you yet Kenny!

The fact that the passage can be interpreted in so many ways basically renders it useless as a prophetic message. That’s when you know that you are dealing with a man-made document, and not the “inspired” word of God.

I would also add that the only interpretation that lines up with historical fact is that Daniel 9 was referring to events involving the Seleucid dynasty and the persecution under Antiochus IV. All other interpretations are pathetic examples of eisegesis.

“Faiz,
I wish you peace and will refrain from behaving badly by insulting you back the way you constantly do to me. I don’t expect you to study the next two links I am going to give, but I offer them for the open minded and sincere seekers of truth as alternatives to what Faiz has offered here.

This is a good article on the Daniel 9 passage by Presbyterian minister and scholar, Kenneth Gentry:

I will put another link in a different comment box, because I think if there are two links, the comment goes into moderation.”

Ken, you pretend like you don’t insult people, but both you and your new buddy like to do just that. So when you get it in kind, you shouldn’t complain. Having said that, I’m willing to let bygones be bygones and give us a fresh start. But be forewarned, the second I see you hypocrisy coming out, don’t get mad when I put you or your cowardly friend in your place.

“Shamoun’s articles were good also; and Faiz did not refute them. The articles and scholars Faiz used are not persuasive, and full of novel ideas that stretch credulity, especially the one that admitted he was making 490 equal 441.

2nd article for the sincere seeker of truth:

This article answers the questions that we all have about Darius the Mede. The author shows his view is confirmed by Xenophon and Josephus. Most Evangelicals understand him as a vice-regent king under Cyrus who was from Median descent, who was given rulership over the area of Babylon that Cyprus conquered as ruler over all of the Persian Empire. Many Caesars and Emperors in history did this.

This sort of nonsense is why people don’t take Evangelicals seriously. No serious scholar regards Darius “the Mede” as a historical figure. But I will give this a look and see if there is any merit to this new argument. Hmm, isn’t it strange that Ken rejects Athas’ views because they are “new”, but blindly accepts Anderson? Bias much?

“I agree with that – the last week (last 7 years) seems to be from Messiah’s baptism (26 AD) to 34 AD(stoning of Stephen and conversion of Saul – gospel going out to the Gentiles)
in the middle of the week, the covenant will be confirmed with many. – this is Jesus’ death as the confirmation of the covenant in His blood that He made at the Lord’s supper – and His death is what ends all sacrifices and also provides redemption for “the many” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28 – notice the phrase “for the many”) This is also the view that Kenneth Gentry expressed in the link I gave earlier. ”

Fanciful interpretations and eisegesis. Can’t you ever be consistent and objective? The last week is described as a time of upheaval. It’s amazing how you are willing to blaspheme your savior by claiming that this week refers to the conversion of Paul and other events. The text is clearly referring to Antiochus IV and his “covenant” with some Jews. To argue otherwise is just foolish. A sincere seeker of truth will accept the clear parallels between the text and historical events that occured in the middle of the 2nd century BC.